Next question: Who is there in power that can bring Johnson and/or Stein to the front-door of these debates and demand to be let in? Because there is a not-so-veiled threat which I've bolded in red.

Gary Johnson wrote:

I would say I am surprised that the CPD has chosen to exclude me from the first debate, but I'm not. After all, the Commission is a private organization created 30 years ago by the Republican and Democratic parties for the clear purpose of taking control of the only nationally-televised presidential debates voters will see. At the time of its creation, the leaders of those two parties made no effort to hide the fact that they didn't want any third party intrusions into their shows.

The only time a third candidate has been allowed on the stage was 1992, when both parties wanted him on the stage for their own purposes. It should be noted that, when Perot was allowed on the stage, polls showed his support to be in single digits, below where Johnson and Weld are currently polling.

The CPD may scoff at a ticket that enjoys "only" 9 or 10% in their hand-selected polls, but even 9% represents 13 million voters, more than the total population of Ohio and most other states. Yet, the Republicans and Democrats are choosing to silence the candidate preferred by those millions of Americans.

Americans are tired of rigged systems, and the monopoly on debates created by the CPD is a prime and skillfully executed example.

Bill Weld and I will continue to fight to provide a voice and an alternative for independents, disenfranchised Republicans and Democrats, Millennials and others who aren't satisfied with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as their options.

It is unfortunate that the CPD doesn't believe such a voice should be heard. There are more polls and more debates, and we plan to be on the debate stage in October.

They should hold their OWN here in Geek Chat during this other "ongoing" and we'll compare notes upon WHATEVER were 'addressed' instead of their "publaloblob-pablum" and 'HardBIGballs'-query, so we can determine WHOM had the UTMOST "biggiest-MAN-hands"

Well, neither Stein nor Johnson has any chance of being elected. Including them in the debate with Clinton and Trump would only take time away from the two actual candidates. It's nice to be informed and all that, but isn't it more important to be informed about people who might have a chance of actually being elected?

Well, neither Stein nor Johnson has any chance of being elected. Including them in the debate with Clinton and Trump would only take time away from the two actual candidates. It's nice to be informed and all that, but isn't it more important to be informed about people who might have a chance of actually being elected?

Except this time I am not so sure that is true. Sure it is very unlikely, but it's not impossible (given how odious the two main candidates are) that we could see an upset.

Sure it is very unlikely, but it's not impossible (given how odious the two main candidates are) that we could see an upset.

No, it's impossible. About 75% of the electorate is completely and unshakably locked into their vote at this point, and Johnson and Stein are only polling as well as they have because neither has had to actually seriously compete. In a debate Clinton waxes either of them without trying hard (and as much as I loathe Trump I think his brand of dominance politics would work well against both), because most of the flirting-with-Johnson voters don't know most of his positions - like, seriously, the guy wants to raise Social Security eligibility to *72*, that's a rock-solid model for getting 2% of the vote - and because Stein advocates for a lot of woo-woo things and has said an incredible amount of dumb shit, and because it's easy to look like a viable Presidential candidate when nobody's campaigning against you.

We've already seen other candidates with the political skill of Johnson and Stein this year. They were all gone by the end of the third primary.

Sure it is very unlikely, but it's not impossible (given how odious the two main candidates are) that we could see an upset.

No, it's impossible. About 75% of the electorate is completely and unshakably locked into their vote at this point, and Johnson and Stein are only polling as well as they have because neither has had to actually seriously compete. In a debate Clinton waxes either of them without trying hard (and as much as I loathe Trump I think his brand of dominance politics would work well against both), because most of the flirting-with-Johnson voters don't know most of his positions - like, seriously, the guy wants to raise Social Security eligibility to *72*, that's a rock-solid model for getting 2% of the vote - and because Stein advocates for a lot of woo-woo things and has said an incredible amount of dumb shit, and because it's easy to look like a viable Presidential candidate when nobody's campaigning against you.

We've already seen other candidates with the political skill of Johnson and Stein this year. They were all gone by the end of the third primary.

And, of course, the "ownage" would only happen in one direction, right? Would some of their flaws get exposed? Sure. But Hillary and Trump both have flaws of mammoth proportions. But why doesn't anyone take them seriously? Because "But the other guy is worse" is the new "Abra Kadabra" where saying it makes things disappear.

Why don't any of Hillary's supporters have serious qualms about her ethical shortcomings? Because Trump. Why don't any of Trump's supporters have serious qualms about his total inexperience in governing? Because Hillary. The very act of him being on stage would add a legitimacy that would give an alternative that people either didn't know about or consider seriously.

Even if he got crushed in the debates, the very act of being on stage would be enough to get him a massive number of points. But you and your ilk have already pre-decided that a two-term governor isn't qualified to be president and would get dismantled so let's not even bother. And for you, the reason is simple. Because Trump. And if jeremy was to say the same thing, his reason would be Because Hillary.

'advocate & 'institute' were as 'differing' of in WHAT either/both major Party Legislators already HAVE, and shall repeatedly 'inflict & infect', our very "governing bodies" with their ongoing incompetent maleficence. Perhaps, we required a RESET *Option* beginning with immediate ouster of those 'incumbents' continuing their "disservice of society" through theirs. NONE felt nor believed themselves 'culpable' beyond their VOTE of these into office, since, whenever any had been FOUND'criminally negligent', why, those that PLACED them into the 'position' initially are not equally as 'responsible'? FELONS 'lose' their RIGHT of 'vote', EXCEPT, apparently, you-all?

Sure it is very unlikely, but it's not impossible (given how odious the two main candidates are) that we could see an upset.

No, it's impossible. About 75% of the electorate is completely and unshakably locked into their vote at this point, and Johnson and Stein are only polling as well as they have because neither has had to actually seriously compete. In a debate Clinton waxes either of them without trying hard (and as much as I loathe Trump I think his brand of dominance politics would work well against both), because most of the flirting-with-Johnson voters don't know most of his positions - like, seriously, the guy wants to raise Social Security eligibility to *72*, that's a rock-solid model for getting 2% of the vote - and because Stein advocates for a lot of woo-woo things and has said an incredible amount of dumb shit, and because it's easy to look like a viable Presidential candidate when nobody's campaigning against you.

We've already seen other candidates with the political skill of Johnson and Stein this year. They were all gone by the end of the third primary.

And, of course, the "ownage" would only happen in one direction, right? Would some of their flaws get exposed? Sure. But Hillary and Trump both have flaws of mammoth proportions.

You're creating a false equivalence because my point is: most of Johnson and Stein's support in polling is soft, because they're largely unknown quantities. I mean, former Sanders supporters who are considering Johnson aren't doing it because Sanders and Johnson have anything close to equivalent policy viewpoints.

Trump and Clinton have flaws, sure. Lots of them. But their flaws are largely known. People who support Clinton and Trump know about their flaws already; it's essentially impossible not to do so. Lots of people who support Johnson or Stein don't know that Johnson's compromise position on Social Security is increasing eligibility age to 72, or that he's pro-TPP, or that he opposes minimum wage laws in their entirety, or that he wants to eliminate the estate tax and replace it with a national sales tax. Lots of them don't know that Stein is antivax, or that she has a bonkers plan to eliminate student debt through qualitative easing, or that she's praised Russia's human rights record.

How is Johnson or Stein gonna get up on stage and "own" Hillary? Get up there and say, what, what Trump and tons of conservatives have been saying for months/years/decades? Or is this the magic bit where you decide that Johnson and Stein are secretly policy mavens and wizard public speakers despite a near-total lack of evidence?

Quote:

Why don't any of Hillary's supporters have serious qualms about her ethical shortcomings? Because Trump.

Or because they consider the accusations regarding her ethical shortcomings to be overblown.

Quote:

Why don't any of Trump's supporters have serious qualms about his total inexperience in governing? Because Hillary.

Or because they've decided that his inexperience is actually a plus.

Quote:

Even if he got crushed in the debates, the very act of being on stage would be enough to get him a massive number of points.

Look how well it worked for Ross Perot!

Quote:

But you and your ilk have already pre-decided that a two-term governor isn't qualified to be president

No, the American people as a whole have decided that Johnson (and Jill Stein) isn't worth having in the debates. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein have had over a year apiece to try to convince the American electorate that they should be considered as serious options to the main two parties in a year where the two major parties have chosen candidates who each have remarkably high net-disapproval ratings. They've both had a remarkable amount of press coverage as compared to most third-party candidates - they've each gotten live coverage of multiple events and speeches on major news networks, and Johnson's national ceiling was around eight percent and Stein's less than four.

There's being qualified to do the job of president. There are a lot of people who are qualified to be President, frankly - a lot of smart people with the general intelligence (both analytical and emotional/social), managerial skill and stamina needed for the job. Being qualified for the job of President isn't the same thing as qualifying for a debate, which is a different question entirely: that qualification is about convincing a sufficient number of voters that you deserve to be advertised freely to the wider electorate as someone with a decent chance at becoming President.

Johnson and Stein have each had a year with two of the most unpopular Presidential candidates ever and much more press coverage/free advertising than Libertarian and Green candidates usually get, and they can't crack even two-thirds of the standard requirement to enter a national debate. These two schmucks simply don't make the grade, and I find it hilarious that most of the people complaining about Johnson's non-inclusion are people who usually claim that affirmative action is immoral, because that's what they're advocating for with Johnson - except, of course, that what they're advocating for with Johnson is what they actually imagine affirmative action to be, rather than the reality of what it is.